gold_setup_check

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It frames the tool as read-oriented ('Shows'), specifies the output categories, and adds a privacy constraint ('names only, never values'). It does not explicitly state 'makes no changes', but the checking/shows framing makes unintended side effects unlikely.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences front-load the critical usage instruction ('run this FIRST') and pack the relevant output details into the second sentence. There is no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it states why to run it, what it reveals, what it deliberately hides, and what the agent should expect next. Nothing else is needed to invoke it correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, so the baseline is 4 and no parameter explanation is required. The description adds useful context about what will be shown but does not need to discuss inputs.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names the specific resource ('Etsy Gold'), states it is a 'SETUP CHECK', and lists the concrete outputs: license tier, API key presence, and next step. It is clearly distinguished from the operational gold_* sibling tools by its 'run this FIRST' positioning.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

'Run this FIRST' is explicit guidance about when to invoke the tool, establishing it as the preliminary step before the sibling Etsy tools. It does not name alternatives or exclusions, but the priority instruction is unmistakable and sufficient for a setup check.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.